I live in the area. There's so much wrong with this article and I'm too tired to even try to pick it all apart. But let's start here: this site is some 30 miles outside of St. Louis.
I live in the area. There's so much wrong with this article and I'm too tired to even try to pick it all apart. But let's start here: this site is some 30 miles outside of St. Louis.
It's in St. Louis county pretty stinking close to the airport (which is run by the city) so that's splitting hairs considering St. Louis is one of the few cities where it's county and city are separate.
How is it an overreaction. If you know the actual danger you should probably tell the EPA because they don't know. The extent of the reaction here is the state Attorney General wrote a letter to the EPA and some people have put up some signs and tried to sift through old paperwork.
Also you said "pretty much" to a dude who pulled "the sample size isn't big enough" out of his ass, he has no idea what the sample size was.
The EPA is the organization that decided that the current methods of dealing with it is sufficient, so I don't see any reason to tell them anything they already know.
I live in the area. There's so much wrong with this article and I'm too tired to even try to pick it all apart. But let's start here: this site is some 30 miles outside of St. Louis.
I'm from Missouri and I can ensure you that St. Louis does NOT have its shit together. Not even close. It's too busy being the biggest ghetto in the U.S.